This is Real “Choice” — and Truly Pro-Life
Here’s some news from the Feminists for Life website:
Feminists for Life supports the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act introduced Thursday, March 16, 2006, by Michigan women legislators. The five-bill package identifies very specific forms of coercion from financial threats to physical violence, which could result in jail time and/or fines. Abortion providers would be required to expressly screen women for coercion, inform coerced women of their rights, and refer them to domestic violence agencies.
“There is nothing pro-choice about having no choice,” said Feminists for Life President Serrin Foster. “Women deserve better than unwanted abortions.”
The legislation stands in stark contrast to a lawsuit—nicknamed “Roe v. Wade for Men”—filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court in Saginaw, Michigan. The suit, supported by the National Center for Men, contends that men should have the choice to “decline fatherhood,” including financial responsibility, in the event of pregnancy. State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from both parents.
“We have heard from too many women and girls who had unwanted abortions due to threats of withholding financial and emotional support,” said Foster. “Women and girls have repeatedly told us stories of being thrown out of their home by boyfriends, husbands and parents who said they would pay for an abortion, but if she has the child she’d be on her own; employers who found pregnancy and parenting incompatible with the job, educators who tell women they can’t possibly complete their education if they have a child.”
“The worst cases have been those involving not only verbal threats to withhold financial support and emotional support, but those where physical violence has been used against pregnant women,” said Foster.
Why don’t those who claim to be for “choice” ever support legislation like this?